A Connecticut political commentator noted on his blog that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave a trifling gift of $250,000 to Planned Parenthood in the wake of its jihad to force the Susan G. Komen Foundation to reconsider its momentary pledge to cut its own grants to the nation’s premier abortion provider.
Not to be too obvious, but Mr. Bloomberg is multimillionaire Democratic POLITICIAN, and supporting Planned Parenthood is advantageous politics for liberals and progressives.
Planned Parenthood is not new to politics. The commentator pointed out that the politically muscular abortion provider “jumped into the 2010 Connecticut U.S. Senate campaign against pro-choice Republican Linda McMahon. Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal’s press staff member Marcy Stech sent an October 22, 2010 email to seven others seeking ‘mysoginistic photos of women and WWE. Planned Parenthood wants to hit LM hard on it. What do we got?’ Stech was doing the bidding of Democratic consultant Andrew Grossman who appears to have had information from inside non-profit Planned Parenthood.”
During her campaign against present U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, Mrs. McMahon staked out what she considered to be a moderately reasonable position on abortion. “I am pro-choice,” she said, “however, I oppose partial-birth abortion and federal funding of abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake. I'm in favor of parental notification/parental consent legislation.” Polls consistently show that her position aligns with majority opinion in the United States.
Mr. Blumenthal’s views on abortion were more encompassing and very much in line with that of Planned Parenthood, which is why the “non-politicized” organization threw its backing to Mr. Blumenthal in his successful journey from his position in Connecticut as attorney general to the U.S. Senate:
During his campaign, Mr. Blumenthal boasted, “I brought the first lawsuit to enforce the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it a crime for demonstrators to use force or block access to reproductive health facilities. I obtained a permanent injunction against protestors who refused to comply with a court order to keep away from clinic entrances in Connecticut… I filed suit to halt enforcement of the so-called Provider Conscience Rule. When Walmart announced that it would ban "Plan B" emergency contraceptives in its stores, I worked to ensure that no Connecticut retailer could refuse to stock emergency contraception.”
The “emergency contraception” to which Mr. Blumenthal refers is Plan B, Plan B One Step, Next Choice and Ella “morning after” pills. The controversy over whether
“emergency contraceptives” may in some circumstances act as abortifacients continues to rage across the fruited plain, from sea to shining sea. Those who argue that “emergency contraceptives” may be aborifacients point out that fertilization – the union of a female ovum or egg and male sperm, considered by most scientists as the beginning of human life – occurs in the fallopian tube. If emergency contraception chemicals are ingested after fertilization has occurred, the lining of the uterus is altered in such a way as to cause the woman’s body to reject the living human embryo, implantation is prevented, the birth cycle is fatally interrupted, and natural development of the embryo is aborted.
The discussion may seem to some academic if the prospective mother chooses to avail herself of the services of Planned Parenthood, because the premiere abortion provider in the country utilizes other means to prevent even late term birth.
Mrs. McMahon was not alone in objecting to a procedure characterized by the late U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as “virtual infanticide.” Fully 70 percent of Americans consistently disapprove of a “health service” that would treat a nearly born infant as if it were the remains of a meal to be ground up in a waste disposal unit. A ban on partial birth abortion was signed into law by President George Bush in 2003, over the hearty objections of former President Bill Clinton and President Obama when Mr. Obama was an Illinois state Representative.
As an Illinois state Representative, Mr. Obama voted “present” on seven votes concerning issues relating to abortion. A “present” vote effectively functions as a “no” vote in Illinois because legislative rules specify that only “yes” votes count towards the passage of a bill. Voting “present” therefore is a backdoor, cowardly way of voting since “present” votes make it difficult for opponents to use such votes against candidates in campaign advertisements.
Here is a full list of Obama's seven 'present' or “No” votes on issues related to abortion, as reported by the Washington Post:
Most political watchers would be very surprised if Mr. Blumenthal drifted very far Mr. Obama’s thus far successful attempt by executive fiat to impose on observant religious laypeople Planned Parenthood measures that most certainly will cause faithful believers to choose between intolerable “health care” dictats and their own religious obligations. A number of Mr. Blumenthal’s comrades in Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional delegation fully support the president; though, lucky for them, it will not be necessary to effectuate an executive department dictat through the usual democratic legislative process.
Neither Mr. Blumenthal nor any of the Democrats in Connecticut's single party congressional delegation are clamoring to vote up or down on the measure, because they do not wish to put their fingerprints on such a divisive ruling so close to an election. What a pity these timid legislators have not been allowed to vote “present.”
Not to be too obvious, but Mr. Bloomberg is multimillionaire Democratic POLITICIAN, and supporting Planned Parenthood is advantageous politics for liberals and progressives.
Planned Parenthood is not new to politics. The commentator pointed out that the politically muscular abortion provider “jumped into the 2010 Connecticut U.S. Senate campaign against pro-choice Republican Linda McMahon. Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal’s press staff member Marcy Stech sent an October 22, 2010 email to seven others seeking ‘mysoginistic photos of women and WWE. Planned Parenthood wants to hit LM hard on it. What do we got?’ Stech was doing the bidding of Democratic consultant Andrew Grossman who appears to have had information from inside non-profit Planned Parenthood.”
During her campaign against present U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal, Mrs. McMahon staked out what she considered to be a moderately reasonable position on abortion. “I am pro-choice,” she said, “however, I oppose partial-birth abortion and federal funding of abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake. I'm in favor of parental notification/parental consent legislation.” Polls consistently show that her position aligns with majority opinion in the United States.
Mr. Blumenthal’s views on abortion were more encompassing and very much in line with that of Planned Parenthood, which is why the “non-politicized” organization threw its backing to Mr. Blumenthal in his successful journey from his position in Connecticut as attorney general to the U.S. Senate:
“I will fight to protect a woman's right to choose and ensure that abortion remains safe, legal and rare. I have strongly and consistently opposed measures infringing upon women's reproductive rights.While abortion in the United States certainly is legal, it is not rare. The number of abortions performed per year in the United States as of 1996 were 1.37 million. Black women were more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women were roughly 2 times as likely.
During his campaign, Mr. Blumenthal boasted, “I brought the first lawsuit to enforce the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which makes it a crime for demonstrators to use force or block access to reproductive health facilities. I obtained a permanent injunction against protestors who refused to comply with a court order to keep away from clinic entrances in Connecticut… I filed suit to halt enforcement of the so-called Provider Conscience Rule. When Walmart announced that it would ban "Plan B" emergency contraceptives in its stores, I worked to ensure that no Connecticut retailer could refuse to stock emergency contraception.”
The “emergency contraception” to which Mr. Blumenthal refers is Plan B, Plan B One Step, Next Choice and Ella “morning after” pills. The controversy over whether
“emergency contraceptives” may in some circumstances act as abortifacients continues to rage across the fruited plain, from sea to shining sea. Those who argue that “emergency contraceptives” may be aborifacients point out that fertilization – the union of a female ovum or egg and male sperm, considered by most scientists as the beginning of human life – occurs in the fallopian tube. If emergency contraception chemicals are ingested after fertilization has occurred, the lining of the uterus is altered in such a way as to cause the woman’s body to reject the living human embryo, implantation is prevented, the birth cycle is fatally interrupted, and natural development of the embryo is aborted.
The discussion may seem to some academic if the prospective mother chooses to avail herself of the services of Planned Parenthood, because the premiere abortion provider in the country utilizes other means to prevent even late term birth.
Mrs. McMahon was not alone in objecting to a procedure characterized by the late U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as “virtual infanticide.” Fully 70 percent of Americans consistently disapprove of a “health service” that would treat a nearly born infant as if it were the remains of a meal to be ground up in a waste disposal unit. A ban on partial birth abortion was signed into law by President George Bush in 2003, over the hearty objections of former President Bill Clinton and President Obama when Mr. Obama was an Illinois state Representative.
As an Illinois state Representative, Mr. Obama voted “present” on seven votes concerning issues relating to abortion. A “present” vote effectively functions as a “no” vote in Illinois because legislative rules specify that only “yes” votes count towards the passage of a bill. Voting “present” therefore is a backdoor, cowardly way of voting since “present” votes make it difficult for opponents to use such votes against candidates in campaign advertisements.
Here is a full list of Obama's seven 'present' or “No” votes on issues related to abortion, as reported by the Washington Post:
“In 1997:As attorney general, Mr. Blumenthal has been spared the indignity of voting for or against bills that would require infants born alive during “botched” abortions to be allowed to die from medical neglect. Mr. Blumenthal has not yet covered himself in ignominy by voting on such measures; his likely votes on similar bills can only be deduced from his fulsome support of Planned Parenthood’s agenda.
“SB 230 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Senate approved bill 44-7, with five senators voting present, including Obama.
“HB 382 Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. House version, passed Illinois State Senate, adopted as law. Under the bill, doctors who perform partial-birth abortions could be sent to prison for one to three years. The woman would not be held liable.
“In 200: HB 1900 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed 38-10, with nine present votes, including Obama.
“SB 562 Parental Notice of Abortion Act. Bill passed Senate 39-7, with 11 present votes, including Obama.
SB 1093 Law to protect Liveborn children. Bill passed 34-6, with 12 present, including Obama.
“SB 1094 Bill to protect children born as result of induced labor abortion. Bill passed 33-6, with 13 present, including Obama.
“SB 1095 Bill defining ‘born alive’ defines ‘born-alive infant’ to include infant ‘born alive at any stage of development.’ Bill passed 34-5, with nine present, including Obama.”
Most political watchers would be very surprised if Mr. Blumenthal drifted very far Mr. Obama’s thus far successful attempt by executive fiat to impose on observant religious laypeople Planned Parenthood measures that most certainly will cause faithful believers to choose between intolerable “health care” dictats and their own religious obligations. A number of Mr. Blumenthal’s comrades in Connecticut’s U.S. Congressional delegation fully support the president; though, lucky for them, it will not be necessary to effectuate an executive department dictat through the usual democratic legislative process.
Neither Mr. Blumenthal nor any of the Democrats in Connecticut's single party congressional delegation are clamoring to vote up or down on the measure, because they do not wish to put their fingerprints on such a divisive ruling so close to an election. What a pity these timid legislators have not been allowed to vote “present.”
Comments